If the Bible is the Word of the Creator ....

[LifeHiscost]

why don't many of those of His creation, who see themselves as His children, read it as their best guide for life?

"But if they hearken not, they shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge." Job 36:12 ASV

[Bravus]

Perhaps because there's a world of possibility in the first two letters of that sentence?

[Naomi]

why don't many of those of His creation, who see themselves as His children, read it as their best guide for life?

"But if they hearken not, they shall perish by the sword, And they shall die without knowledge." Job 36:12 ASV

Perhaps it is because we insist on taking on the personality of a small child. We fight authority and look for love and happiness in all the wrong places.

Perhaps this is However, I am reminded of a long-ago conversation. Someone who was very serious told me, "There is no God." We discussed it for a while. He then said, "Well, if there is a God then he has to be very mean, weak and uncaring."

My answer is the same today as it was at that time.

If you are correct then you have every reason to live your life as you wish. But, when it ends there is nothing to look forward to.

If I am right. Staying close to God, and living by God's word has given me a good life. If I live it as closely to Him as possible when my life ends and you are correct, I still have had a good life.

If I am right, I have had a good life and an even better eternal life.

We have choices, every day, if we don't pray and study it is easy to take the wrong fork in the road.

Naomi

[cricket]

Not directed to anyone in particular, but what are all these "ifs" about?

The implication of the word "if" is to open Christianity to debate.

Is debate welcome?

[phkrause]

Not sure if your reply was off topic or not, it was an excellant reply either way. It reminded me of a few books by Morris Vendon. He uses that same theme.

pkrause

[bevin]

Quote:

Staying close to God, and living by God's word has given me a good life. If I live it as closely to Him as possible when my life ends and you are correct, I still have had a good life.

Very true. The fundamentals of Christian life make a firm foundation for an enjoyable life in a pleasant society. Most of the SDA extensions to what most Christian's believe - avoid alcohol, eat and exercise properly, state of the dead - are further significant improvements.

/Bevin

[D. Allan]

Quote:

why don't many of those of His creation, who see themselves as His children, read it as their best guide for life?

But is it the best guide? Didn't Jesus say that He would send the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, and that He will guide us into all truth?

[Ron Lambert]

Also, why don't scientists even consider it responsible scientific inquiry to include this testimony in their study of the origins of the earth? Would it be responsible scholarship to study the history of the Golden Gate Bridge without giving due weight to the testimony of its architects and engineers?

Insisting that true science must exclude any consideration of this testimony is fundamentally unintelligent.

[cricket]

Quote:

Insisting that true science must exclude any consideration of this testimony is fundamentally unintelligent.

Likewise, irresponsible is the insistance of some Christian organizations [of any type] to exlude consideration of scientific [and other weight bearing reasoning] explanations/testimonies.

[bevin]

Quote:

why don't scientists even consider it responsible scientific inquiry to include this testimony in their study of the origins of the earth?

Because science doesn't use testimonies. It uses reproducible experiments.

And the reason it insists on that is because so many frauds have been exposed - claims to have seen or done things that later evidence proves were false claims.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

And science isn't about getting to the truth if the truth involves a supernatural explanation. Science is limitted to the study of the natural world; to include consideration of the supernatural, would by definition, be outside the realm of science. Hence we have philosophy of science where scientific evidence is viewed in light of religeous belief and tradition.

[cricket]

Science need not necessarily be limited to the study of the natural world. Science is the study of all things measurable and repeatable. Supernatural phenomena can, indeed be measurable; assuming God meant that He really wanted us to experience His mercies (i.e., "Taste and see that the Lord is good!" Psalm 34:8), supernatural phenomena is also repeatable.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

Also, why don't scientists even consider it responsible scientific inquiry to include this testimony in their study of the origins of the earth?

The Bible mentions the four corners of the earth. Scientists are not going to consider that our earth is flat.

God doesn't mind us using our minds, as long as our heart is right. The Bible is about inner-space,(like that empty space between my ears, or in my heart) not about outer-space.

The Bible urges us to use the experimental method. "Taste and see if I am good." Try Him, you'll like Him, we are advised. There are so many tests and experiments to conduct in my spiritual life that are not affected by the concept of Origins.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

The Bible mentions the four corners of the earth.

"And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth." Isaiah 11:12

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" Isaiah 40:22

I think Isaiah understood the earth was round. The "four corners" seems to refer to geographical locations that the Jews were carried off to, not the shape of the earth.

[D. Allan]

Quote:

I think Isaiah understood the earth was round.

Maybe. A circle is flat. A sphere is round. I think Isaiah's was not trying to be scientific - but his point is that compared to the cosmos we humans are small, our knowledge partial, our activities about as significant as the hopping around of grasshoppers.

In other words we need to be humble. Don't you think that is more important than being scientifically correct or in-correct?

[D. Allan]

God doesn't mind us using our minds, as long as our heart is right. The Bible is about inner-space,(like that empty space between my ears, or in my heart) not about outer-space.

[bevin]

Isaiah was circa 700 BC. It is possible but not likely that he thought the earth was a sphere. There is not much in the ancient literature that would suggest this idea until...

Pythagoras (circa 550 BC) thought the Earth was a sphere, and seems to come very near the beginning of the idea. Evidences include the shape of the moon, the shadow during an eclipse, and observations of things moving across the horizon

Eratosthenes (circa 250 BC) had the diameter pretty near correct

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Maybe. A circle is flat.

That is possible but it certainly doesn't have four corners.

[cricket]

A circle is a continuum of infinite corners. Each of which can be identified by its relation to four: North, South, East and West.

[D. Allan]

Shane, shouldn't I be more concerned about Isaiah's intended message (humility?) then wheather he understood the geometry of the earth?

[Dr. Shane]

Some of us think a little deeper than others

[D. Allan]

Sometimes I feel about as deep as a mud puddle;)

[Nicodema]

Hmmm, I always thought it was deeper to pay attention to the message than to the random bits of flotsam and jetsam ... LOL ... guess I was wrong, eh?

[Ron Lambert]

Paying attention to the testimony of the Creator (which includes intelligently interpreting it, so we recognize when a metaphor is being used, such as "four corners of the earth") should not be regarded as an alternative to science, as if you cannot have science unless you ignore the Word of God. We should stop allowing ourselves to be conned by the naturalistic philisophy that some would impose arbitrarily on science.

Science is the inquiry into what is true, no more and no less. The scientific method (which was invented, by the way, by creationists who believed that experimental results should be repeatable because there is a Creator who maintains His creation) should be used as an important tool in the inquiry into truth, but should not be used as an excuse to disregard the testimony of the Creator, whose very Word creates reality. Saying that employing the scientific method is the full limit of science, is just an attempt at advocating atheism.

Since reality includes the spiritual, it must be included in true science. If you limit yourself to repeatable experiments only, how could you ever arrive at a true knowledge of the origin and purpose of the Golden Gate Bridge? Until you have considered the testimony of the creators of the bridge, until you have evaluated its purpose as stated by its creators, you have not arrived at a true knowledge of the reality of the bridge.

[Joy]

Well said Ron!